by Jeff Davis

Hollywood’s latest re-make of a movie about a big ape abducting a young attractive blonde seems like typical mindless entertainment, but some liberals are raising a stink over the latest “King Kong.”

“Lots of people say it’s racist,” writes left-wing columnist and movie reviewer Jim Pinkerton. “And, if it is, why does the film keep getting remade? What does it say about us if the new Kong is a huge hit? Any movie that features white people sailing off to the Third World to capture a giant ape and carry it back to the West for exploitation is going to be seen as a metaphor for colonialism and racism That was true for the original in 1933 and for the two remakes: the campy one in 1976, and the latest, directed by Peter Jackson.” (In addition, a Kong wannabe, “Mighty Joe Young” has been made twice with Charlize Theron starring in the most recent remake.)

That’s right. Mr. Pinkerton apparently wants us all to go off on a deep philosophical ponder about the profound cultural significance and inner psycho-sexual symbolism of a giant monkey. Actually, this isn’t the first time the liberal psychobabble crowd has gotten their hooks into King Kong. In 1976, when the Dino de Laurentis re-make starring Jessica
Lange was released, there was all kinds of “sophisticated” commentary on why the gigantic ape figure lacked genitalia. This was supposed to be some kind of deep and dark psychological need to “emasculate the black man.” De Laurentis was asked for comment and replied more or less: Is-a too expensive for de balls. Dino no spenda million dollars on monkey balls.

The question of “Why does King Kong keep getting re-made?” is mildly interesting. The movie plot is about as simple as possible. The contrast between the Americans with their guns, cameras and large freighter and the Third World savages on the island has a certain magnetic appeal. No doubt liberals and minorities don’t want Americans looking at a black island tribe in its natural state. Even the island’s great wall separating Kong from the tribesmen is said to have been built and left behind by a more advanced civilization. Apparently a giant ape is irresistible to young movie-goers even though it seems an island still unexplored by 1933 would be too impossibly small to support Kong, several equally big dinosaurs and their extended families.

Movie reviewer David Edelstein, writing in Slate, notes the “implicit racism of KING KONG – the implication that Kong stands for the black man brought in chains from a dark island… and with a penchant for skinny white blondes.” Comparing the new film with the original, the Washington Post’s Stephen Hunter observed, “It remains a parable of exploitation, cultural self-importance, the arrogance of the West, all issues that were obvious in the original but unexamined; they remain unexamined here, if more vivid.”

That proves it conclusively, folks. The American news media is now proven beyond all doubt to be full of reviewers who have far too little to do. This is probably the same crowd who came up with the insane notion that the insipid character Jar Jar Binks in Star Wars was a “racist stereotype.” Racist against what, for Pete’s sake? Tall green, floppy-eared frog creatures who sound like Bob Marley? Oh, by the way, the famous interplanetary bar scene in the first Star Wars was supposed to be “racist” as well because “it depicts diversity as ugly and threatening.” Diversity has always been ugly and threatening. How many of these whiny liberal do-gooder hypocrites live in a diverse neighborhood or send their children to a diverse public school?

Folks–if you’ll pardon me for quoting Sigmund Freud, “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.” A silly movie about a giant ape is just a silly movie.